The Global Electoral College
I missed the debate last night. Or rather, I didn't watch the debate. I missed seeing emotions play across the faces of the candidates. I was in the car, driving to the middle of Maryland to stand in the rain and cheer for strangers running in a 183-mile relay from Cumberland to DC. To cheer and track their times. Make sure they followed the rules. Make sure they turned right at the stop.
I didn't watch the debate, but I listened to it as I drove in the rain. Cheering at points. Shouting at others. (I was alone in my car.) Both seemed to carry themselves well. I agreed with points on both sides and disagreed with others. I didn't track anything or make sure the candidates followed the rules, but I listened. The world listened.
In advance of our own national elections, the Economist opened the polls for the world to vote. From now until the first of November, people, world wide, can vote for the US presidential candidate they want to see in office come January.
The Global Electoral College
Votes are cast on a country-wide level. Each country is assigned a number of votes according to the size of its population (we call these "electoral-college votes" on the model of America's actual electoral-college system). Then all the countries' votes are tallied, to determine each candidate's worldwide total. You can see at a glance which countries are pro-Obama or pro-McCain, along with their respective vote percentages. The candidate with the most electoral-college votes will win the worldwide election. Of course our winner may not be the actual winner in the real election though it will be interesting to see who The Economist's readers choose.
The Economist might appeal more toward one side or another. International voters might have their own interests in mind. It's not a scientific poll by any stretch, but it does provide a global spin of our national election.
Interesting, at least.
Tag: Election
posted by Kristin @ 7:56 AM
4 Comments:
Couldn't we please just skip the election and let the world decide? :)
what a great idea. let's ask a bunch of countries that hate us to decide our fate. man... i am interested in what the economist outcome is.
Barbara - It's interesting, at least.
Chud - I would not say the Economist, a UK-based publication, is asking a bunch countries that hate us to decide our fate but whom global readers would prefer to see in the role. If some of those countries hate us, part of the animosity might be toward our foreign policy, which will change with whomever takes office.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state or country-by-country, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home